Graduate students and junior faculty are bringing new scholarly practices and mindsets, even in an environment where traditional forms of scholarship are a requirement for hiring and tenure. The extent to which young scholars have concrete technical knowledge varies widely; while the examples given by workshop participants tended to disconfirm the impression that "Millennials" naturally take to new tools with little or no guidance, a few had worked with young scholars for whom that was true. Attitudes and expectations are bigger differentiating factor for younger scholars.
The extent to which scholarly practice in the humanities is unique emerged as a contentious subject. A number of scholars saw the humanities as highly heterogeneous, to the extent that no convergence in practice could be possible. A number of scholars emphasized the role of serendipity in their work, and felt that no metadata or standard would be fully applicable to them because of it.
The extent to which engagement with digital humanities is a liability for junior faculty was frequently discussed during the Project Bamboo workshop 1 series. There was a widespread consensus that it is "not good for getting tenure if you spend time on technology" (Day 1, 1A), since the promotion and tenure system is still built around a printed publication model of scholarship. There are no agreed-upon standards for evaluating digital scholarship, nor a formally recognized organization that could serve as an equivalent to peer-review.
Working in the digital humanities often requires a commitment to doing things that one might prefer to avoid. Some of them are tied directly to incentives-- a scholar is unlikely to receive funding for an "innovative" project if he has failed to keep up with new technologies. The incentive is less strong in other cases: data entry, OCR proofreading, data formatting, and writing documentation are time-consuming and tedious, and it is possible to do just enough to satisfy the funding agency for a project, even if the resulting product is not optimally useful.
Many digital humanities projects are developed by organizations without large budgets, using funds from a "start-up grant". Consequently, tools and projects fail to be maintained after the funding runs out, and may eventually be taken down, although university libraries will sometimes step in to provide long-term server space. One workshop participant prioritized data preservation over tool preservation, on the grounds that tools are soon supplanted but the data created through the use of tools can be reused.
Across multiple workshops, participants concluded that training would play an important role in the widespread adoption of digital humanities tools and methodologies. There was some discussion about whether "training" were the best word-- some felt it was reductive, and didn't capture the fact that, beyond teaching which button to click in a given piece of software, successful digital humanities "training" involves a fundamental change in the scholar's methodologies.
The feedback and critique process that allows a scholar to refine their work was identified as a theme of scholarly practice after the Project Bamboo Workshop 1 series. The most formal-- and arguably most important-- channel for feedback is peer review. Peer review is the "seal of approval" for written articles, indicating that they have passed a certain threshold of quality.
An examination of the discussions related to standards suggests that they may be considered a mixed blessing. Particularly from the perspective of librarians and some IT professionals, they are emphatically good and necessary for interoperability and durability, and it is imperative that more tools and projects adopt them. However, certain scholars recoiled at the idea of standards being "imposed" on their projects, out of a concern that standards may prevent them from doing projects the way they'd like.
So you wanna create a clearinghouse for tools, data, projects, and/or resources? A lot of people also think that it's a good idea. You'll soon be hearing from many people who have serious doubts about the feasibility of your project. Here's some issues to think about:
The question of where scholars can go to discover relevant tools, resources, data and projects remains relevant, despite a number of high-profile attempts to address it, including MERLOT and the DiRT wiki. One of the proposed directions for Project Bamboo was for it to serve as a clearinghouse for tools, data, projects, and resources, including information about standards and best practices, templates for writing reports about digital projects, pedagogical materials, etc.